Will the Pentagon Change Its Manual on the Law of War?

A senior lawyer at the Defense Department said last week that criticism about a section on the role and treatment of journalists in the Pentagon’s new Law of War manual, is “something of major concern.” And well it should be.

Charles Allen, a Pentagon lawyer, told Bob Garfield, the co-host of the National Public Radio show On the Media, that department officials are taking public comments into account to “make updates” to guidelines in the document that spells out the Pentagon’s view of the law of armed conflict.

That can’t happen quickly enough.

The Pentagon’s Law of War manual, published in June, says journalists may be censored to stop them from revealing information to the enemy. The manual advises journalists to do their job openly, with the authorization of “relevant authorities,” because it says reporting can be similar to gathering intelligence. In some unspecified instances, the document says, reporting information that is useful to a party in the conflict can “constitute taking direct part in hostilities.” And without clear explanation, the manual says journalists can sometimes be deemed “unprivileged belligerents,” or unlawful combatants.

Mr. Garfield was tough on Mr. Allen, who was unable to point to any instance in which military operations were jeopardized by field reporting in modern history.

“I don’t have specific cases in mind,” Mr. Allen said in the interview. “I think that the fact that we don’t have a lot of examples could be a tribute to the press corps and my colleagues in the public affairs area.”

Mr. Garfield was not persuaded.

“Your manual is concerned with bad journalistic apples of whom you can offer no examples,” Mr. Garfield said. “I, on the other hand, can offer many examples of military misfeasance and malfeasance and cover-ups and atrocities. My concern is that in the hands of such a bad apple commander, the manual could be used as a document of impunity for commanders who are just trying to operate badly under the radar, to save themselves from embarrassment, prosecution or worse.”

Mr. Allen sounded contrite, saying “there was no intention to change any of the ongoing rules and arrangements that apply to our strong policy of cooperation with the media.”

Responding to criticism of the manual, the Pentagon has also said, bizarrely, that the guidelines “are not policy and the manual is not directive in nature.”

A New York Times editorial earlier this month called on Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter to rescind the guidance. Kathleen Carroll, the executive editor of the Associated Press, said in a statement that she was troubled by the manual’s language, saying it “seems particularly hostile and a bit too convenient for those who want to conduct the people’s military business, including war, outside of scrutiny of any kind.”

Jon Williams, the foreign editor at ABC News, in a tweet called it “factually wrong, damaging to press freedom & downright dangerous.”

Perhaps the most notable criticism came in a tweet from Douglas Frantz, a former reporter at The Times, who serves as the State Department’s assistant secretary for public affairs.

What was the Pentagon was thinking calling journalists “unprivileged belligerents” in new manual on law of war? //t.co/fDcsAvmjA9